Hereford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

SONNIE WELLINGTON HEREFORD, )

IV, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

and )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) Case No.: 5:63-cv-00109-MHH

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v. )

)

HUNTSVILLE BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The City of Huntsville Board of Education has operated under federal

supervision since 1970. (Doc. 67; see Doc. 364, pp. 8–23). The Court has

supervised the school district’s work in several areas pursuant to Brown v. Bd. of

Edu., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent Cnty., Va.,

391 U.S. 430 (1968). The Board has asked the Court to release it from supervision

as to three Green factors: faculty and staff, facilities, and extracurricular activities.

(Doc. 827; see also Docs. 758, 759, 782). This opinion addresses the Board’s

motion.

As the Court stated in its April 2015 memorandum opinion in this case, in

1963, “Huntsville’s public schools were racially segregated by law. Negro children

[were] sent to Negro schools only and [those] schools [were] staffed solely by Negro

personnel. Conversely, white children [were] sent only to schools containing white

children,” and those schools were “staffed solely by white personnel.” (Doc. 449,

p. 2) (quoting March 11, 1963, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, ¶ 5). In 1970, the Court ordered the Board to file with the United States

Office of Education a desegregation plan for the school district. (Doc. 67, pp. 1–2).1

The desegregation plan was to “announce and implement” policies addressing

faculty and staff; majority to minority transfers; equity in school construction and

site selection; interdistrict transfers; equity in services, facilities, activities, and

programs, including athletics and other extracurricular activities; and equity in

transportation. (Doc. 67, pp. 3–8). For decades, in fits and starts, the Board

implemented the desegregation plan. (Doc. 364, pp. 8–23).

In April 2015, 45 years after the Court ordered the Board to implement a plan

for desegregation of the school district, the United States Department of Justice and

the Board presented to the Court a proposed consent order to update that Board’s

desegregation obligations and position the Board to finally “eliminate the vestiges

1 In 1970, the Office of Education was part of the United States Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare. (Doc. 67, p. 1).

of the unconstitutional de jure system.” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 485 (1992);

(see Doc. 388-1). The consent order covers several topics including faculty,

facilities, and extracurricular activities. (Doc. 450, pp. 62–73). The Court approved

the consent order, (Doc. 450), and the Board has worked diligently to implement its

obligations under the order.

To evaluate the Board’s motion for release from supervision in the areas of

faculty, facilities, and extracurricular activities, the Court uses the criteria the United

States Supreme Court has established for public school desegregation cases. Public

school systems that were racially segregated by law must abolish “‘the system of

segregation and its effects’” so that racial discrimination in public education is

eliminated “root and branch.” Green, 391 U.S. at 438, 440. “The Green factors are

a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance”

with Brown. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 486. When a public school district eliminates

the vestiges of the prior unconstitutional de jure system “to the extent practicable”

and demonstrates its good faith commitment to the future operation of the public

school system through “specific policies, decisions, and courses of action that extend

into the future,” a federal court must “restore state and local authorities to the control

of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution.” Bd. of

Educ. of Oklahoma City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991). In its

discretion, a district court may “order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its

supervision and control” over a public school district. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489.

Faculty and Staff

The 1970 desegregation order obligated the Huntsville Board of Education to

assign all “principals, teachers, teacher-aides, and other staff who work directly with

children at a school” so that no public school in the district was racially identifiable.

(Doc. 67, p. 3). The Board was to assign staff so that the ratio of Black to white

teachers and other school staff at each school was “substantially the same as each

such ratio [was] to the teachers and other staff, respectively, in the entire school

system.” (Doc. 67, p. 3). The 2015 consent order updated the Board’s

responsibilities concerning the recruitment, hiring, promotion, demotion,

termination, and assignment of faculty and staff. (Doc. 450, pp. 65–66, §§ V.A–B).

The consent order requires the Board to keep records regarding faculty and staff and

establishes new annual reporting obligations for the Board. (Doc. 450, pp. 67–70,

§§ V.C–D).2

The record demonstrates that the Board has, to the extent practicable,

eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation with respect to faculty and staff. When

the Court implemented the 2015 consent order, 30 % of the district’s principals were

2 The district has complied with its reporting requirements under the 2015 consent order.

Black, and 40 % of the staff members in the district’s schools were Black. (Doc.

828-1, p. 5) (citing Doc. 542, p. 28; Doc. 565-7, p. 2). In 2024, 56 % of the district’s

principals were Black, and 53 % of the staff members in the district’s school were

Black. (Doc. 828-1, p. 5).3 When the Court implemented the 2015 consent order,

27 % of the district’s teachers were Black, (Doc. 828-1, p. 5) (citing Doc. 542, p.

28), and in 2024, 33 % of the teachers in the district’s schools were Black. (Doc.

828-1, p. 5). Overall faculty retention increased from 80% in 2016–2017 to 88% in

2023–2024, with some fluctuations over the years. (Doc. 828-1, p. 4, ¶ 6).4 The

increase in teacher retention is indicative of the Board’s good faith, demonstrating

the Board’s effort to retain Black and white teachers.

On this record, the Board has demonstrated its good faith commitment to

hiring principals, faculty, and staff in a manner that prevents the schools in the

district from being racially identifiable, and the Board appears to be committed to

retaining its Black principals, faculty, and staff. Accordingly, the Board has satisfied

3 In 2023, the Court suspended the Board’s reporting obligations as to faculty and staff, (Doc. 770,

p. 4, ¶ 5), but the Court required the Board to preserve the records needed for reporting under

Section V.D. of the Consent Order, so that updated information would remain available to the

Court and the United States should future proceedings in this matter require it, (Doc. 770, p. 4,

n.2).

4 The district struggled with teacher retention in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years during the

Covid pandemic. (See Doc. 828-1, p. 4, ¶ 6). The number of Black teachers in the district was

largely consistent over those years, and the number has increased in the past two academic years.

(Doc. 828-1, pp. 5, 7, ¶ 7).

the faculty and staff Green factor. The Court releases the Board from federal

supervision of faculty and staff.

Extracurricular Activities

The 1970 desegregation order stated that no student could be segregated from

or discriminated against “on account of race or color in any . . . extracurricular

activity . . . that may be conducted or sponsored by or affiliated with the school in

which [the student] is enrolled.” (Doc. 67, p. 7). Under the 2015 consent order,

public high schools in the district have had to offer a variety of extracurricular

activities, including honor societies, math teams, ROTC, student leadership

organizations, and other clubs. (Doc. 450, p. 62, § IV.A). Middle and junior high

schools have had to offer activities such as National Junior Honor Society, a math

team, and at least one student leadership organization. (Doc. 450, p. 62, § IV.B).

Elementary schools have had to offer at least one math club. (Doc. 450, pp. 62–63,

§§ IV.C–D). The Board has had to ensure that students and families have received

information about extracurricular opportunities. (Doc. 450, p. 63, §§ IV.E–F). Each

year, the Board has had to provide to the United States copies of school yearbooks

and submit a report containing, by school, details regarding the extracurricular

activities offered, student participation rates, and measures used to inform students

about available activities. (Doc. 450, pp. 63–64, §§ IV.G–H).

In their February 2024 Joint Status Report, the parties stated that, with minor

exceptions, the Board has complied with its desegregation obligations concerning

extracurricular activities. (Doc. 782, pp. 8–9). The Board has promoted its

extracurricular clubs and teams through a variety of channels, such as morning

announcements at schools, paper handouts, newsletters emailed to parents, text

notifications, and flyers posted throughout schools. (Doc. 828-1, pp. 7–8, ¶ 9).

The Board has consistently provided the United States with copies of

yearbooks, as required under the consent order. (Doc. 828-1, p. 8, ¶ 10). In its

annual reports, the Board has provided comprehensive data regarding its

extracurricular offerings and participation rates. (See, e.g., Doc. 500, pp. 21–23;

Doc. 505-8; Doc. 505-9; Doc. 506-1; Doc. 667, pp. 32–35; Doc. 667-38; Doc. 667-

39; Doc. 667-40; Doc. 744, pp. 27–30; Doc. 744-4; Doc. 816, pp. 34–36; Doc. 816-

8).5

Having reviewed the information that Superintendent Sutton provided in

support of the Board’s motion, the Court is satisfied that the Board has made

significant efforts to eliminate barriers and ensure that students may join the clubs

and academic teams available at their schools, and the Board has attempted to

provide clubs and academic teams equitably across schools in the district. (Doc.

5 Because the Court suspended the Board’s reporting obligations, (Doc. 841), the Board’s 2025

annual report does not include a complete extracurricular report.

828-1, pp. 10–14, ¶¶ 14-20). The Board has demonstrated its commitment to

continue to organize and make available to all students in each public school

extracurricular programs without regard to race.

Therefore, the Court releases the Board from federal supervision with respect

to the extracurricular activities Green factor.

Facilities

The 1970 desegregation order prohibited the Board discriminating against any

student “on account of race or color in any . . . facility . . . with[in] the school in

which he [was] enrolled.” (Doc. 67, p. 7). In addition, “[a]ll school use or school-

sponsored use of . . . facilities . . . [were] to be open to persons without regard to race

or color.” (Doc. 67, p. 7). Under the 2015 consent order, the Board has had to ensure

that school facilities are equitable. (Doc. 450, p. 71, § VI.A). The consent order

mandated the construction of new facilities for Jemison High School, McNair Junior

High School, Grissom High School, Whitesburg Pre-K through 8th Grade School,

Sonnie Hereford Elementary School, and Morris Pre-K through 8th Grade School.

(Doc. 450, p. 71, § VI.A.1, 3). In addition, the Board had to complete renovations

at Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School and the Academy for Academics and

Arts. (Doc. 450, p. 71, § VI.A.2). The Board had to fully implement its Playground

Plan and ensure that each school serving grades seven and eight was equipped with

a SMALLab. (Doc. 450, p. 71, §§ VI.A.4–5).

Under the consent order, when the Board renovates or replaces existing school

facilities, it must “adhere to District-wide standards, such that following renovations

or construction, the school or renovated section of the school meets the same

standards of quality as applied to newer schools.” (Doc. 450, p. 72, § VI.B.1). The

Board also must “[m]aintain standards for ensuring that as improvements are made

to teaching technology, school security systems (e.g., door alarms), and

environmental materials remediation, all schools are treated comparably.” (Doc.

450, p. 72, § VI.B.2). Additionally, the Board had to “[e]liminate all portables in

use during the 2014-15 school year by the 2017-2018 school year, and, in the future,

use portables in the District only as necessary as an interim solution.” (Doc. 450, p.

72, § VI.B.3).

The Board has satisfied its construction and renovation obligations under the

consent order. (Doc. 541, pp. 7-8; Doc. 782, pp. 10-11). The Board has

implemented its elementary school playground equipment modernization project.

(Doc. 828-2, p. 5, ¶ 5). The Board complied with its obligation to install SMALLabs

in schools that house grades seven and eight, (Doc. 541, pp. 7-8), and received

permission to discontinue the SMALLab rooms in favor of expanded classroom

space, (Doc. 744, p. 45). The Board consistently informed the United States and the

Court about the phase out of the SMALLabs. (See Doc. 782, p. 11). The Board has

complied with its obligations regarding portable classroom space, though portables

still seem to be in use, and the Board has consistently filed its annual facilities

reports. (See Doc. 840-1, p. 27; Doc. 457, pp. 31 – 34; Doc. 463-1; Doc. 500, pp.

32–34; Doc. 507-1; Doc. 542, pp. 33–35; Doc. 569-3; Doc. 598, pp. 38–40; Doc.

637-3; Doc. 667, pp. 46–49; Doc. 667-55; Doc. 698, pp. 38–41; Doc. 698-7; Doc.

723, pp. 38–41; Doc. 723-7; Doc. 744, pp. 41–45; Doc. 744-7; Doc. 779, pp. 26 -

28; Doc. 779-5; Doc. 816, pp. 37–39; Doc. 816-5).6

With respect to its demonstration of good faith, the Board prepared and

submitted a ten-year capital plan for Court approval that sought to address critical

facility needs in an equitable and fiscally responsible way while supporting

desegregation efforts. (See Doc. 797). The Court approved the Board’s motion to

proceed with the capital plan. (Doc. 803).

In the Desegregation Advisory Committee’s 2024–2025 Annual Report, the

DAC expressed concerns regarding the motion to release the Board from judicial

supervision of facilities due to “significant anticipated changes within the capital

plan.” (Doc. 840-1, p. 17). The DAC suggested that the Board provide regular

updates as capital improvement plan projects begin or reach completion. (Doc. 840-

1, p. 27). The DAC believes that such communication will foster community

engagement and public understanding. (Doc. 840-1, p. 27).

6 Because the Court suspended the Board’s reporting obligations, (Doc. 841), the Board’s 2025

annual report does not include a complete facilities report.

In his response to the 2024–2025 DAC report, the Superintendent provided

information about steps the district is taking to reduce the use of portable classrooms.

(Doc. 840-2, pp. 7–8), and the Superintendent stated that the Board will provide

updates on implementation of the Capital Plan at Board meetings, (Doc. 840-2, p.

8).

The record demonstrates that the Huntsville Board of Education has complied

in good faith with the facilities requirements in the 2015 consent order. Through

correspondence with counsel for the parties, during the 2025 fall semester, the Court

attempted to schedule a conversation with the DAC regarding the capital plan; the

Court has not located a response from counsel.7 Given the ongoing implementation

of the ten-year capital plan and the concerns articulated by the DAC regarding

release from supervision of facilities during that implementation, the Court will offer

one more opportunity for a conversation with the DAC or the DAC Chair before the

Court rules on the Green facilities factor.

In sum, the Court releases the Board from supervision of faculty and staff and

extracurricular activities and defers ruling on the Board’s request for release from

supervision of facilities.

7 The Court sent a message on October 2, 2025 offering a meeting in October 2025 and a message

on October 27, 2025 offering a meeting on November 19, 2025.

Given the Court’s release of the Board from supervision of faculty and staff,

Doc. 758 is moot. The Clerk of Court shall please TERM Docs. 758 and 827.

DONE and ORDERED this April 13, 2026.

Aadulen HUGHES HAIKALA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12